International Journal of Selection and Assessment最新文献

In this “Provocation Article”, we argue that the sole focus of personnel selection research and practice on job performance criteria represents a substantial limitation. While job performance remains a key outcome, employee well-being is also relevant—both as an intrinsic value and as a predictor of important organizational outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, and citizenship behavior. Given the solid evidence on individual differences and work-related factors that influence employee well-being, and drawing on ethical, legal, and economic arguments, we call for a paradigm shift: Well-being should be treated as an explicit criterion in personnel selection. We outline five practical pathways for integrating well-being into selection systems, including the use of well-being-related traits (which should be carefully matched to job-specific demands), person–environment fit approaches, simulation-based tools, communicating well-being priorities to applicants, and using selection insights to inform onboarding and support. We also discuss four key challenges, such as the risk of discriminatory practices, balancing multiple criteria, and faking. Finally, we sketch a research agenda to guide future work on well-being-focused selection. Overall, we advocate for multi-criteria selection systems that promote not only organizational performance but also human flourishing.

In this commentary on Lievens and Dunlop (2024), we critically evaluate the implications of candidate GenAI use from the perspectives of criterion- and construct-related validity. While the focal article provides valuable scenarios for understanding the role of GenAI use by candidates, we argue it may underestimate the speed of technological development and overstate the generalizability of augmentation across all job types. By considering increasing GenAI accessibility, we highlight how ease of use may weaken the diagnostic value of GenAI-related variance in assessments. Furthermore, we propose experimental paradigms to empirically investigate the impact of GenAI on criterion- and construct-related validity by framing GenAI as either an impersonator or an assistant. Finally, we reflect on a future where GenAI agents may challenge existing conceptions of construct validity, calling for a rethinking of the way we define and measure psychological constructs in the age of AI.

While the concept of 21st century skills has become omnipresent, there is little consistency regarding the terms, definitions, or measurement instruments used, causing a problem for personnel selection policies as well as education and training. A proliferation of terms makes it difficult to identify, operationalize, assess, and teach these nontechnical skills, and also goes against the scientific principle of parsimony. This study aimed to simplify the field by using a three-phase approach to quantify and reduce the extent of proliferation: A literature survey, a latent semantic analysis, and a hierarchical cluster analysis. Forty 21st century “skills” were identified in the literature search, and analyses revealed a high degree of semantic and psychometric overlap. This suggests that some individual “skills” may not be conceptually distinct, but are rather an array of context-dependent manifestations of a more general underlying competency. We stop short of proposing a new taxonomy of 21st century skills, however some examples of conceptually distinct themes to emerge include competencies relating to interpersonal (e.g., teamwork), intrapersonal (e.g., self-management), and goal-directed/executive skills. To establish greater coherence within the field, we suggest standardizing terms, reducing task impurity of assessment, and revisiting the concept of skills to encompass only higher-order, general competencies. We assert that human resources (HR) professionals should shift from isolated skill labels to adopt competency-based hiring and training frameworks, and use dynamic, behavior-based assessments to evidence these abilities rather than self-reports.

The challenge of attracting highly qualified workers is a growing concern for organizations. From a strategic communication perspective, emphasizing competitive pay has been regarded as essential for attracting highly qualified job applicants. However, little research has examined whether interviewers' strategic emphasis on pay is effective in attracting highly qualified applicants compared to less qualified ones. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of interviewers' emphasis on pay in attracting highly qualified applicants and explore an alternative reward that may be more appealing when emphasized during interviews. Across four studies involving 1016 participants, we find that while competitive pay is frequently highlighted during job interviews, such emphasis tended to attract less qualified applicants than highly qualified ones. In contrast, when interviewers emphasize career growth potential regarding a job, highly qualified applicants are more attracted compared to their less qualified counterparts. We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications.

Asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) often feature a limit on the total time allotted for an interviewee's response to a question. Little is known about how this time limit affects interviewees' experiences and outcomes. This experiment investigates the influence of different response time limits, one, three, or five min, on interview anxiety, impression management (IM), and interview performance. Participants (N = 185) took part in a mock AVI. We measured their interview anxiety state, honest and deceptive IM usage, and interview performance. Results showed that time limits did not directly affect anxiety or IM, but changed how long participants spoke. Interviewees spoke differently depending on the condition, with speaking time plateauing from three min. Speaking longer was linked to lower anxiety, more honest IM, and higher performance. However, simply offering more time did not guarantee these benefits. In fact, longer response time limits increased anxiety and lowered honest IM and performance when controlling for speaking time. Also, performance followed a curvilinear pattern: it was highest with a three-min time limit and lower when interviewees had one or five min. This effect was driven by changes in clarity and relevance, whereas competence ratings remained stable. Overall, while 1 min appears too restrictive, giving more than three does not improve outcomes.

A history of cannabis prohibition and tobacco/drug-control campaigns has created negative stereotypes around cigarette and cannabis users. Cyber-vetting, where organizations scan prospective employees’ online footprints, has also risen. This research integrates stereotyping and personnel selection literatures to examine whether cyber-vetted knowledge of job applicants’ private smoking behaviors influences assessor evaluations regardless of interview performance. It also examines the implications of when cyber-vetting takes place. Three experiments with student and professional samples paired social media cyber-vetting with realistic video-based interview simulations in North American jurisdictions where recreational cannabis is legal. In Study 1, 224 Canadian business students, role-playing as hiring managers, gave lower ratings to cigarette and cannabis smokers. A high-quality interview, while helpful, did not overcome the lowered evaluations. In Study 2 (with 318 Canadian business students), we used the Stereotype Content Model to show the indirect impact of smoking status on expected counterproductive workplace behaviors and final evaluations via diminished competence and warmth perceptions. In Study 3, 185 HR professionals in California also rated smokers unfavorably. While overall evaluations were higher when cyber-vetting occurred pre- versus post-interview for cannabis smokers, no significant differences were found for cigarette smokers. Overall, we highlight implications for smokers’ employability as cyber-vetting and legal access to cannabis both gain traction.

We demonstrate that overreliance on the common convention in our field that virtually any composite of three or more specific cognitive tests will result in a robust measure of general cognitive ability (GCA) can lead to inconsistent inferences about the nature of subgroup differences in GCA. Using data from Project Talent and NLSY97, we examined how different composites of cognitively loaded tests can vary in terms of subgroup differences. After forming all possible three-test composites in each dataset, we found that while these composites generally had very similar correlations with GCA, they varied much more widely in their degrees of gender and race/ethnic mean score differences. We discuss considerations that can aid in assembling test composites that better capture true subgroup differences.